Is it possible to have a peaceful, negotiated outcome of a special operation, how to come up with a new ideology and not live within the framework of someone else's project, what is managerial logic, Pravda.Ru was told by political scientist, publicist Leonid Krutakov.
— A counteroffensive has begun in the Kursk region. Why didn't we react immediately?
— I am not a military expert, I can evaluate the political effects and results. Why did this happen at all? Because we were not ready, because our borders with Ukraine were not closed. This means that the conflict, which we call SMO at the top and which has long turned into a full-scale war, taking into account strikes on the territory of Russia, on the Moscow region, is treated by our elites involved in decision-making as a tactical misunderstanding, which sooner or later will be resolved by negotiations.
Therefore, we have not heard the address "brothers and sisters", which the people heard from Stalin at one time. Therefore, the format of a commercial war, that is, contract soldiers are fighting. And the territory was not closed, because we have, as they say, terrorist attacks.
From the point of view of Ukraine and international law, our strikes and special operations in Zaporozhye, Donetsk and Lugansk are also terrorism, an attack on another country. That is, for them it is war and aggression. I'm talking about legal formulations. And they respond accordingly. Why can we fight on their territory, from their point of view, but they can't on ours? If we lock ourselves in this logic of a special operation, we will always be unprepared for it. We will always count on some kind of peaceful outcome, which can end either in Moscow with the dismemberment and destruction of Russia, or in Kiev with a change of power, regime and a full-scale judicial investigation of all the crimes of the Kiev regime, starting with Odessa and Maidan.
Any attempt to limit ourselves to half measures will lead to a freeze, lines of demarcation, and we will live like North Korea with South Korea. This is just the preservation of a deep serious conflict in the historical perspective. This means that we will not solve this problem, but will forward it to our children and grandchildren if they live to see it. I would like us to live to solve this problem.
— Let's talk about the current situation then. There are battles of local importance, extremely difficult for those who are there. There are strategic, tactical operations. What is happening now? On the one hand, attacks on our territory have become more frequent. On the other hand, there are weak talks about negotiations. How do you see this situation and how do you assess it?
— You said everything right. I think that on the other side there is a real operator of the conflict, the one who created it, provoked it, cultivated it. On the other hand, there is a war of words. Why does the United States not give the go-ahead for the use of missiles to strike deep into Russia, so that they fly somewhere to Gorky Park during the mass festivities that we like to arrange in Moscow? Because they are afraid that such a high-level strike from Ukraine will provoke Russia to real hostilities.
For the USA, Russia's victory on Ukraine is the collapse of their global project. They pursue their goals, grow a certain social environment in a test tube with certain attitudes: destroy a Russian, a Russian is not a person, it's a goblin, an orc, what you do with it, you will be forgiven. And for them, any continuation of the war in the current format is beneficial.
How do we even liberate in the Kursk region? We're demolishing everything. Where will people come to live? The cellars? It will have to be rebuilt. I am not a military specialist. But I remember the previous rings, girths, seizure of territories.
How did Ukraine enter the territory of the Kursk region? She did not shoot, did not destroy the village. They broke through in mobile groups and captured a huge territory.
And now we are using the fiery shaft to clean it up. This can also be attributed to the war in Donetsk, in Zaporozhye. If these are our people (and we say that these are our people, we admit it publicly, I also believe that these are Russian people, with altered brains, but many are not yet with altered ones), then why don't we feel sorry for them? Why do we destroy everything in our path and think that this way we can solve this problem? Are we increasing the opportunities for establishing relations with these people who find themselves in a gray ideological, ideological, psychological zone? Or are we destroying opportunities for building relationships?
When we were told that ideology was not needed, and we constitutionally banned it, we thereby deprived the country of goals and objectives. We said that only the level of consumption matters. What kind of GDP, how much we have sold, how much we have bought, what amount of money we have. To take away a historically formed ideology from a country, from a nation, is the same as removing the meaning of life from a person and saying: you are an animal, eat and shit in the toilet, you don't have to do anything else, you shouldn't have goals and objectives, you are who you are, you don't have to achieve anything, Live, rejoice. They make pigs out of people. When a country is deprived of ideology, it abandons its historical mission.
Now the realization is coming to us. You know, China in the XVIII century produced about 20% of world GDP. And then they decided that they were such a self-sufficient empire that they would develop inward. They burned their entire powerful oceanic fleet, which provided them with dominance. English galleons immediately arrived and explained to the Chinese emperor that it was impossible to develop only at the expense of oneself, without positioning oneself in the outside world and not dictating their conditions to others.
We also refused this, decided that we could live at the level of our region. The Crimean, Ukrainian challenge shows us that this will not work. You have to declare yourself as a historical subject, and here you need an ideology, goals, long-term tasks that need to be solved, not the volume of trade and GDP growth.
— It is impossible to take an ideology and come up with it on your knee. She must follow the dictates of time, the mood of people. How to create it? How to find something that can unite? Usually unites an external enemy, danger, aliens. Although this is not an ideology, it is still something else.
— What you are talking about is the issue of safety and survival, on which large social systems were originally formed. Serfdom is a way of communal survival in large areas with very unfavorable geographical natural resources. One person could not survive. If a large social system does not create a new model of relations, does not explain it theoretically and does not offer it as a model to other states, does not extrapolate it, then it is nothing.
This is the greatness of America: they have proposed a market model that ignores social, domestic and moral norms. They said: "Get rich by any means, because the amount of money justifies everything," and imposed it on the whole world.
Within the framework of this model, all the money is American, the rest of the currencies are derivatives in this model. We depend on the dollar turnover, now we are proudly told that we are switching to the yuan. This means that the ruble will be a derivative of the yuan, that is, we will move from one raw material appendage to another raw material appendage.
The problem of education ... unfortunately, we have people in many respects in power and in science who have adopted this model, consider it the only true one and do not consider other options.
This is when national interests are lower than commercial ones. Only now has Vladimir Putin announced the possibility of reducing the export of strategic resources. I should have thought about it before. Our weaknesses in the West have been well calculated and they are being hit economically.
Russia occupies 11% of the global market for liquid hydrocarbons. But you are not doing anything in this direction, you allow them to use your resources. And they do not allow you to use their resources: through gray schemes, you buy at exorbitant prices what you used to buy on the free market.
This is some kind of guerrilla life in the dugout of the country. I don't like this relationship model. We talked about ideology… Ideology is difficult to codify into a piece of paper, a document. It is formed in the leaders.
Putin today is probably the ideology of Russia. Good, correct, bad — I don't know, the question is different. There is no theoretical deep base, but this is no longer a problem Putin, and the models. In our country, the entire middle link was formed in the 1990s - on the crest of the "success story". And in this sense, Putin is going against the current, against the internal wind. And those guys live, they sit on a personal wallet and a suitcase. They have other motivations.
— You say that it is bad when financial interests prevail over national interests. But it's always been the same. Let us recall Marx, an imperialist who would strangle himself for profit. Let's look at Europe. It's a little different there, not interests, but political dependence. They are destroying their own financial and industrial systems. It was always and everywhere: first the money, and then the chairs.
— It wasn't always like that. In all ancient empires, the market as a system of relations, which we adopted as the regulation of internal and external systems, existed as a bazaar. And the distribution of the main life resource, for example, wheat, has always been a state function.
Surpluses were sold on the market, the market is possible only where there is a shortage. Can you imagine that you can trade bananas in a country where they grow at every turn?
The market and democracy are a way of regulating these scarce, pirate countries of civilization. Therefore, it has not always been so. Yes, you are right that this model has been forming for a long time, the American model of public relations did not appear there yesterday. In order for it to become predominant, it took three world wars, and I mean the Cold War.
After the First World War, an American project was revealed. The US has only declared itself as a financial, not an economic superpower. Then they had practically no economy, all tanks and aircraft were produced in Europe — in England, in France… Germany was a model of technological solutions. After the First World War, when the whole of Europe lay in ruins, all the best European financial, industrial, and economic specialists went to the USA to realize themselves.
By the Second World War, the United States had already become an economic power. After the Second World War, they established a single investment and credit space, the Bretton Woods system. If you want to develop, borrow in dollars.
The Third World War is the Cold War. The Soviet Union created an alternative system of relations, including economic and financial settlement. The Cold War buried the Soviet Union and this system.
The system has been forming for a long time. This is not only a model of relationships, it changes the functions in the brain, changes the decision-making system, attitude to reality, the system of assessments of what is happening, the system of efficiency.
We have adopted a certain behavioral matrix for ourselves and considered that it is the only true one. The Soviet nomenklatura only wanted to perpetuate their own privileges and incomes. But this led to the collapse of the country with its potential, models, systems, and civilizational norms. Now we are going back, trying to recover, and this is a painful process.
At the Higher School of Economics, these managers were printed — at the age of 30-35, the minister, the head of the department. He has no experience yet, he has only learned these algorithms adopted in international practice and makes decisions based on them. And in order to lead the ministry, you need tremendous experience.
If the basis of the effectiveness of the decision-making system is financial performance, this is not professionalism. The director of a tank factory is not a chief engineer who knows all the technologies, but an accountant who counts money. That's how we assign them. And the pieces of paper and the movement of funds do not always reflect the reality on earth.
— Chubais, by the way, said in the 1990s: "Why do we need professional managers? We need to put managers. And it doesn't matter what knowledge a person has."
— We live within the framework of someone else's project. We are the workshop of a large global factory, so why do we need ideas, meanings, ideologies here. It is necessary to count and produce the raw materials and resources necessary for the external consumer, which we must supply to them. And with this money we can buy and do something for ourselves.
And this managerial logic has been established. It breaks with difficulty, because brain stamps have been created. You know, when the largest Western companies change their idea or USP (this is a unique feature that they offer to the world), they change up to 70% of the average management team. Because it is impossible to remake brains. It is better to grow new ones or take those who think differently. And here they have been sitting for how many years. The same people are sitting now as under Yeltsin...